You know, I'm not sure if I envy or pity folks with permanent appointments who get to / have to teach the same thing every year.
Whereas I am all over the place; ancient history, medieval history, an early modern Europe course (!) and this year US Naval History (!!).
Whereas I am all over the place; ancient history, medieval history, an early modern Europe course (!) and this year US Naval History (!!).
Oh and of course a global history of warfare survey that runs, as I tell students at the beginning, "from near human primates to nuclear weapons" which is actually unfair, we don't stop at nuclear weapons.
I do pine to teach more focused classes on the ancient world for sure, but I like that I *can* teach more broadly, that I know how to put together a lecture on, say, the War of 1812 or the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in a way that is effective and valuable.
Though I think the broad reach of interests and teaching can also hurt me, particularly with Classics departments who'd rather I had been teaching Latin (which I can also do, if given the chance).
And of course time taken preparing lectures for new courses is time taken away from something hiring committees care about (research) and putting towards something they mostly do not care about (teaching), so the time demands of that broad range also hurt me there. π€·ββοΈ
But I think on the whole it makes me a better historian. Being able to think about your core research areas with a more global, more chronologically broad framework is really valuable, even if it won't impress a committee.
Loading suggestions...